ISRI Vs. DHRUP LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are : On 5-7-1985 Isri institutes a lawsuit under Sec. 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in the Court of Assistant Collector, First Class, Deoria. The pleading has set forth a pedigree illustrating the relationship of contestants, It is given out that land in suit is a joint family property acquired by an ancestor from common nucleous. In fine, parties are continuing in joint possession. As Sukhari was elder and Karta of the family his name alone was recorded in a representative capacity. In village consolidation operation was gone through but because of ignorance of existing entries in records no objection was lodged. When a dispute arose at the time of harvesting, it led to startling disclosure of erroneous entries. The relief of a declaration as co-bhumidhar tenant along-with defendants 1 to 3 he prays the Court for.

(2.) On 17-12-1986 a written statement by defendant Sita Ram's disputing the claim as set forth. There is denial that holding is ancestral or the name of defendants is recorded in a representative capacity. The land is sole acquisition of Sukhari, father of defendant Sita Ram. Also they are in exclusive possession. Also the plea is that suit is hawed under Sec. 49 C.H. Act.

(3.) Issues are formulated. Parties have been given chance to lead their evidence. On 17-10-1990 trial Court enters an order decreeing the suit. An appeal by defendant Dhrup Lal. On 5-6-1993 Additional Commissioner enters an order allowing the appeal ; the Judgment and decree of trial Court is reversed. The suit of Isri is dismissed because barred under Sec. 49 C.H. Act. Hence a second appeal by plaintiff Isri.